ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
the report defines an HD stream as 2 MbpsI'd be curious to see what a real HD stream would use. |
|
|
88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness |
88615298 (banned)
Member
2012-Sep-10 9:00 am
More than 1/5If you take into account the people that can't stream because they don't have cable or DSL available to them it's closer to 30%. |
|
Bob4Account deleted join:2012-07-22 New Jersey |
to ArrayList
Re: the report defines an HD stream as 2 Mbps8 Mbps |
|
88615298 (banned) join:2004-07-28 West Tenness
1 recommendation |
to ArrayList
Netflix uses around 5 Mbps |
|
88615298 |
to Bob4
Only Vudu actually uses bitrates that high and you'll pay extra for that too. |
|
|
to ArrayList
said by ArrayList:I'd be curious to see what a real HD stream would use. It depends on the codec and compression. 19MBps is the maximum that broadcast HDTV can use and they use a less efficient codec (MPEG2). Blu-ray Disc (BD) can use more than that. Streaming tends to use less because of home internet connections typically being lower bandwidth. It is a chicken and egg scenario. |
|
Bob4Account deleted join:2012-07-22 New Jersey |
to 88615298
I guess I was approaching it from the standpoint of: What connection speed is required to be able to receive any true HD stream? |
|
norbert26 Premium Member join:2010-08-10 Warwick, RI |
it doesn't matterWith usage caps and CATV protecting legacy business models it doesn't matter here in the U.S. . Solve that problem first then go from there. |
|
Sukunai Premium Member join:2008-05-07 |
to ArrayList
Re: the report defines an HD stream as 2 MbpsLooking at the map it is hardly shocking the states that have the least broadband correspond nicely with Canada's northern wilderness.
Hardly shocking eh. Why would there be a lot of broadband in places where there is a lot of no one around. |
|
juilinsandarTexas Gooner Premium Member join:2000-07-17 San Benito, TX |
Surprising that California isn't greenwith silicon valley and many hollywood entertainment companies, one would think they'd have great HD streaming. |
|
tshirt Premium Member join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA |
tshirt
Premium Member
2012-Sep-10 9:48 am
18% Lack Adequate Bandwidth for HD StreamAre you surprised by the study's findings that about a fifth of the United States is not capable of seamlessly streaming HD content? No, not at all, in fact I was suprized we do so well. |
|
|
AnonFTW to norbert26
Anon
2012-Sep-10 10:57 am
to norbert26
Re: it doesn't mattersaid by norbert26:With usage caps and CATV protecting legacy business models it doesn't matter here in the U.S. . Solve that problem first then go from there. Caps are largely irrelevant. I streamed the first 3 seasons of The Office on Netflix last month and my TOTAL usage at the router was only 192GB. That's over 50 episodes plus my normal browsing. If I had to guess, I'd say those 50 episodes consumed 50% of my total usage. |
|
|
asdfas
Anon
2012-Sep-10 9:56 am
GreedyCorporate Greedy + High price = Low bandwidth |
|
|
These reports are still BS.These test what users subscribe to not what they can subscribe to. Therefore these "state of the internet" reports are BS. |
|
pandora Premium Member join:2001-06-01 Outland |
to 88615298
Re: More than 1/5said by 88615298:If you take into account the people that can't stream because they don't have cable or DSL available to them it's closer to 30%. I read the report, while households and corporations are mentioned. The methodology doesn't appear to exclude cell phones or Wi-Fi at a hotel. It also doesn't appear to consider some users may want less than 2Mb speed if they primarily surf or watch low res flash videos. If at phone user has less than 2Mb of download capability, is it really a crisis? Do I expect my local Motel 6 to provide me individually with 2Mb reliably? I'll try to link a copy of the report. I wish the methodology was better described, and that non-landline based access were explicitly excluded. Inclusion of Wi-Fi in hotels, and potentially corporations (or even homes) can skew the data badly. This is not taken into account as best I can tell. |
|
|
cableties
Premium Member
2012-Sep-10 10:33 am
What is recommended overhead...when you have 2-4 family members streaming...? 30Mbs?
-computer software updates -appliances on network -i devices (phones, tablets) -gaming consoles
Adds up fast, especially with 2 or more in the household using netflix, hulu, amazon, youtube, news and weather sites, |
|
aerith Premium Member join:2008-12-31 Milpitas, CA |
to juilinsandar
Re: Surprising that California isn't greenTo me, I am NOT surprised that California is not in "green", when it comes to HD streaming, especially with Netflix in "rich" Los Gatos, CA.
In Netflix's Los Gatos area, the only two options are Comcrap, which is terrible, and Verizon, but no FIOS.
Los Gatos was an ex-GTE market, until Verizon bought out GTE.
Even though one can buy a Lamborghini in Los Gatos, Verizon will not deploy FIOS over there, yet Verizon will deploy FIOS in more crime-ridden Long Beach.
The broadband status in most of the SF Bay Area, is very poor, at best, and as I said in another topic, there will be no true fiber optic solutions, for maybe now forever, because stupid Google didn't want to start in Mountain View.
I am definitely considering a move to Long Beach, and getting out of this SF Bay Area broadband hellhole. |
|
tshirt Premium Member join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA |
to pandora
Re: More than 1/5said by pandora: If at phone user has less than 2Mb of download capability, is it really a crisis?
Of course not! It's still in development mode (and really always will be) and I suppose "streaming HD video" is a better metric than say "can send 230k emails(spam) per hour" But no crisis exists just because every household nationwide can't YET stream HD or or play games or the equivilent measure of USEFUL stuff. but when they change the measurement method and unit size every year it is hard to look and see we',re better off then we were 4 years ago, and last year and are excelerating the rate of improvement. |
|
|
to ArrayList
Re: the report defines an HD stream as 2 Mbps200mb/s |
|
Wilsdom |
to cableties
Re: What is recommended overhead...gigabit and you're done |
|
intellerSociopaths always win. join:2003-12-08 Tulsa, OK |
in other news of the obviousThis map overlays almost perfectly with a state population density map...with South Dakota being an outlier. |
|
morboComplete Your Transaction join:2002-01-22 00000 |
to battleop
Re: These reports are still BS.I suppose technically, these users can all subscribe to T3 lines. I don't think that is realistic though. |
|
|
No, but it's reasonable to assume that people may choose price over speed and choose the cheapest package available. If this report accounted for what you COULD subscribe then the results would be on the high side. |
|
|
tmc8080
Member
2012-Sep-10 11:23 am
easier to shame companies..wherever you have Century/Qwest, and AT&T and your service provider you have broadband that sucks or is non-existant.. |
|
|
silbaco Premium Member join:2009-08-03 USA |
to aerith
Re: Surprising that California isn't greensaid by aerith:To me, I am NOT surprised that California is not in "green", when it comes to HD streaming, especially with Netflix in "rich" Los Gatos, CA.
In Netflix's Los Gatos area, the only two options are Comcrap, which is terrible, and Verizon, but no FIOS.
Los Gatos was an ex-GTE market, until Verizon bought out GTE.
Even though one can buy a Lamborghini in Los Gatos, Verizon will not deploy FIOS over there, yet Verizon will deploy FIOS in more crime-ridden Long Beach.
The broadband status in most of the SF Bay Area, is very poor, at best, and as I said in another topic, there will be no true fiber optic solutions, for maybe now forever, because stupid Google didn't want to start in Mountain View.
I am definitely considering a move to Long Beach, and getting out of this SF Bay Area broadband hellhole. There are a lot of people who would love to be able to subscribe to Comcast. As crappy as they are, their service is much less crappy than a vast amount of the connections out there. |
|
silbaco |
to battleop
Re: These reports are still BS.said by battleop:These test what users subscribe to not what they can subscribe to. Therefore these "state of the internet" reports are BS. That cannot be used as a valid way of measuring HD capability. It is impossible to know who can and cannot receive HD if they don't already. And technically if it defines 2mbps as the minimum, all states should be bright green because they can all get Exede which is fast enough to stream HD. You just could never watch it. |
|
silbaco |
to tshirt
Re: More than 1/5It is not a crisis that people can't yet stream HD, but the question remains "How many people won't be able to stream HD in the next 5 years, 10 years?" If companies truly start abandoning DSL, we could see the improving numbers start to reverse. |
|
tshirt Premium Member join:2004-07-11 Snohomish, WA |
tshirt
Premium Member
2012-Sep-10 12:01 pm
I don't think you're going to see anyone abandoning existing operational equipment as long as the income is above the cost of running it. I do think you are seeing reluctance to install need DSL equipment/remote huts where their is little chance of it being needed long enough to pay back the huge cost (and at the current rate of return) very longterm ROI being forfilled. instead they will push forward other technologies (fixed LTE being a hot one right now) that have similar and constantly expandable backhaul costs but avoid the huge sunk cost of the (really) last mile to EVERY premise) the advantage being the backhaul to the toweror strand can later be converted to FTT? when the density and take rate jusifiies it.
They will build "whatever" as needed IF they can see the ROI. |
|
BlockgorillaSarcasm is my native tongue join:2010-02-11 Wichita, KS |
A better ideoWhat I would really like to see is a density map of the counry with the density of ISP's and some comparison of offered speeds. This might be something the sheeple would understand, an easy picture of what's wrong. |
|
elray join:2000-12-16 Santa Monica, CA |
to asdfas
Re: Greedysaid by asdfas :Corporate Greedy + High price = Low bandwidth As opposed to what? Having the government steal even more from your neighbors, so as to fund even higher-cost bandwidth with a sweet subsidy for you? No, thanks. Bandwidth today, thanks to "corporate greed", is less than half the cost it was 10 years ago, with a few rare exceptions. |
|